The publishers could go the other way--make ebooks widely available to rent several years after hardcover release (in another "window") instead of letting libraries loan them out directly....but the library websites could provide distribution.

They could rent out a book for like $2 per week. I think that at the end of the day this would be more profitable for them than the current windowing system. If you are a fast reader then a book won't cost that much...but then it means you'd probably read a lot more books. It's better for publishers than a secondary market and book loaning where they get nothing on a marginal basis.

The publishers could go the other way--make ebooks widely available to rent several years after hardcover release (in another "window") instead of letting libraries loan them out directly....but the library websites could provide distribution.

Would the library keep access to the book forever, or would the publisher be able to shut off titles it doesn't want to distribute anymore?

One of the problems with the current digital interface is lack of permanent access. Libraries don't rent books; they buy them, and based on local interest and use, they decide which ones to keep for how long. If the publisher keeps control of use of the book (or worse, a third-party interface *and* the publisher can both yank the book), this is not a viable solution.

Also... $2 per week, paid by whom? The person checking out the book? There'll be a very simple & obvious result to that: those books get ignored (and pirated). Libraries are supported by taxes so that individual readers don't have to pay at the time of reading--and they don't have to pay more for reading more. Libraries encourage reading by making access to one book or two thousand books cost the same per person.

Quote:

They could rent out a book for like $2 per week. I think that at the end of the day this would be more profitable for them than the current windowing system.

Thank you, Mrs Joseph, for fighting the good fight on this topic, and for sticking with it! (Karma given!)
There is no doubt that convenience is the "killer app" for the Kindle-- it's really nice to avoid all the hassle of loading a book.
I agree with you-- way too many of us are willing to give up privacy/rights/ethics to enjoy that convenience. And we're willing to give them up for everybody, not just ourselves. I think this sets a dangerous precedent.
We shouldn't forget that until very recently, Amazon had no interest in supporting library book lending on the Kindle format-- they publicly stated that, and pointed out that there was no economic incentive for them to do so, since they're in the business of selling content. I believe that they weren't interested in supporting library reading until they saw a way to make a profit from it. (not just a long-term profit of developing the habit of reading, but a short-term bean-counter profit.)
There is no doubt that Amazon has done lots of things right, in both marketing paper books and ebooks. I've been a customer for a long time, before I had an ereader. I've seen plenty of comments from authors that their ebook system is easy to work with, and offers advantages to them.
There is no doubt, in my mind, that the current Amazon/Overdrive arrangement is ethically wrong. Convenient for a lot of end users, but still wrong.
Amazon should not have access to library user's data, and should not be allowed to use it for marketing. Overdrive should never have consented to the arrangement. Libraries should have been up in arms to prevent it, and so should we. Competing booksellers, both chain & independent (who are placed at a marketing disadvantage due to Amazon's access to library user's records that should be private) have every right to be upset about it, and to put pressure on traditional publishers to object to it.
Frankly, I think it's a GOOD thing that some traditional publishers are currently putting their foot down and saying that it's an unacceptable situation, even if it means irritating Amazon (who is both a major customer & a direct competitor since they've gone into the publishing business), and even if it irritates us to not have easy access to all the ebooks we'd like to have.
I hope that publishers are able to work out an arrangement that makes it possible to get their books into libraries again. I hope that it's arrangement that reflects a better ethical choice. Perhaps the new 3M system (Overdrive competitor) will offer a system that the publishers are more comfortable with, and we'll be able to restore library access to some of these books. I don't think breaking Overdrive's stranglehold on the library system is a bad idea, either.
Kent E

I agree with you-- way too many of us are willing to give up privacy/rights/ethics to enjoy that convenience. And we're willing to give them up for everybody, not just ourselves. I think this sets a dangerous precedent.

What privacy? I have hundreds of books I've acquired from Amazon for my Kindle and they know in great detail what my reading habits are. So now we add in some library books to this mix and Amazon is suddenly learning what great secrets about me? That I borrow the same books that I get from them? That's no surprise.

What privacy? I have hundreds of books I've acquired from Amazon for my Kindle and they know in great detail what my reading habits are. So now we add in some library books to this mix and Amazon is suddenly learning what great secrets about me? That I borrow the same books that I get from them? That's no surprise.

I agree. Anyone using the service understands that Amazon is delivering the book and don't begrudge the "loss of privacy." If you don't want Amazon to know what books you're borrowing, then don't use it. Easy.

Amazon should not have access to library user's data, and should not be allowed to use it for marketing. Overdrive should never have consented to the arrangement. Libraries should have been up in arms to prevent it, and so should we. Competing booksellers, both chain & independent (who are placed at a marketing disadvantage due to Amazon's access to library user's records that should be private) have every right to be upset about it, and to put pressure on traditional publishers to object to it.

The libraries couldn't say no. It has been repeated over and over that Amazon has the biggest market share in the US, and most ereaders are kindles. If the libraries would have said that they are not going to lend to Amazon because they are going to see what you borrowed the consumers would have been pissed off at the libraries. On top of that siding with the publishers when they are the ones doing their best to limit library lending seems counterproductive.

What privacy? I have hundreds of books I've acquired from Amazon for my Kindle and they know in great detail what my reading habits are. So now we add in some library books to this mix and Amazon is suddenly learning what great secrets about me? That I borrow the same books that I get from them? That's no surprise.

It's like I don't understand you on this topic. No one said you don't have the right to give Amazon a complete list of every book you've ever read. Please do, its your right. The part that you don't seem to get is that not everyone wants to do the same!!

Just because YOU are ok with Amazon's actions doesn't mean that MY information needs to be sent to Amazon. Amazon doesn't have the data detail on me that they have for you.

I agree. Anyone using the service understands that Amazon is delivering the book and don't begrudge the "loss of privacy." If you don't want Amazon to know what books you're borrowing, then don't use it. Easy.

While I agree with you that people should just stop using Amazon. It's not true that Anyone using the service understands that Amazon is delivering the book and don't begrudge the "loss of privacy. Maybe anyone on this thread - but not in real life.

While I agree with you that people should just stop using Amazon. It's not true that Anyone using the service understands that Amazon is delivering the book and don't begrudge the "loss of privacy. Maybe anyone on this thread - but not in real life.

If they haven't figured it out by the time they are redirected to Amazon and have to log in to their Amazon account to complete delivery of the book, they certainly should know by then. If the borrower is uncomfortable with Amazon delivering the book, they aren't forced to use them again. I like having the choice.

It's like I don't understand you on this topic. No one said you don't have the right to give Amazon a complete list of every book you've ever read. Please do, its your right. The part that you don't seem to get is that not everyone wants to do the same!!

Just because YOU are ok with Amazon's actions doesn't mean that MY information needs to be sent to Amazon. Amazon doesn't have the data detail on me that they have for you.

The libraries couldn't say no. It has been repeated over and over that Amazon has the biggest market share in the US, and most ereaders are kindles. If the libraries would have said that they are not going to lend to Amazon because they are going to see what you borrowed the consumers would have been pissed off at the libraries. On top of that siding with the publishers when they are the ones doing their best to limit library lending seems counterproductive.

Actually, I don't see any reason why the libraries couldn't say "no". The library ebook system was developed without any participation by Amazon/Kindle until very recently, and it certainly didn't prevent library ebooks from becoming a viable platform. No one with a Kindle could previously read a library book, without illegal manipulation of the file. (as far as I know, anyway.)
At the very least, libraries should insist on an "informed consent" model for ebooks, with a notification that checking out a book in a specific format (.azw, Kindle) will result in your personal information being transmitted to a 3rd party that will use it for direct marketing. It's worth noting that no similar personal data transfer exists for books checked out in Epub format.
With a unified effort, library systems could have prevented this from happening. At some level, Amazon had a lot to lose by not participating in the library system, and I think they finally figured that out. I shopped for an ereader for my wife 14 months ago, and a Kindle was not even a consideration, because it was useless for library borrowing. If I'd purchased an ereader at that time, it would also have locked Amazon out of most ebook purchases I made for the life of that ereader. As it turned out, I waited til this Christmas to buy her the ereader, and picked a Kindle since it did give me library options, and we liked the ease of transfer. I'm upset that 2 out of the 3 library systems in my metro area had to drop, at least temporarily, all ebook access, and that a number of publishers will no longer provide new ebooks to library systems (at least library systems using the Overdrive system). I've done enough reading to be aware that this is a way more complicated issue than just being upset at Penguin, etc. I'm also upset with Overdrive & Amazon, because I believe they're as much of the problem as anyone.
I'm astonished that so few here have a problem with the data-harvesting. My phone is on the do-not-call list for tele-marketing, I don't read junk mail. I'm tired of having my email box filled with spam. It's not that I have anything to 'hide', I just don't approve of my every action being used as a 'marketing opportunity' by someone, and I definitely don't approve of hidden 'opt-in' actions by marketers.
Imagine this: let's say Mastercard cuts a deal with Xmart. Every time you make a purchase an item that Xmart stocks, whether or not you bought it at Xmart, your personal data is transferred to Xmart, and you start getting email marketing from them. Anytime you pay for a prescription or doctors visit with your Mastercard, Xmart sends you tie-in promo material for stuff they sell that might be related. Any problem with this? You might not object, and that's fine. I'd be using my Visa card, and the Mastercard would be getting sliced into ribbons (even if I had to use a USB cable!).
Kent E

I agree. Anyone using the service understands that Amazon is delivering the book and don't begrudge the "loss of privacy." If you don't want Amazon to know what books you're borrowing, then don't use it. Easy.

This. And having Amazon do the book delivery provides a couple of real advantages to users, most notably being able to share the book between devices...although I suppose being able to keep annotations would be useful for people who made annotations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The libraries couldn't say no. It has been repeated over and over that Amazon has the biggest market share in the US, and most ereaders are kindles. If the libraries would have said that they are not going to lend to Amazon because they are going to see what you borrowed the consumers would have been pissed off at the libraries. On top of that siding with the publishers when they are the ones doing their best to limit library lending seems counterproductive.

I think both of these are basically right. Dramatically limiting the number of people who can use e-books - particularly in time where library budgets are at risk and e-books seem to be very popular - would just be a bad idea for a library whose ultimate funding comes from taxpayers.

Actually, I don't see any reason why the libraries couldn't say "no". The library ebook system was developed without any participation by Amazon/Kindle until very recently, and it certainly didn't prevent library ebooks from becoming a viable platform. No one with a Kindle could previously read a library book, without illegal manipulation of the file. (as far as I know, anyway.)

No one with a Kindle could previously read a library book because of Amazon. To refuse based on something that many tax paying consumers don't care about would have been bad for them. The publishers don't want ebooks in libraries anyway. They were just looking for a reason to say no.